Bail granted on parity where the applicant’s case was identical to that of a released co-accused.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 274/2026 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, for offences under Sections 126(2), 310(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The prosecution alleged that, on 12 May 2026 at about midnight, 10–12 persons riding motorcycles intercepted the complainant’s auto-rickshaw, threatened him by displaying a pistol, and snatched his mobile phone

The applicant was arrested on 14 May 2026 and remained in judicial custody. The charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and co-accused Lavkush Kumar had been granted bail by the High Court in a connected matter

The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s alleged participation in the armed interception and robbery

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused

The Court also considered the allegations under Sections 126(2), 310(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, while imposing conditions to secure the applicant’s presence and prevent misuse of bail

Although the allegations indicated that the applicant had allegedly participated with other accused persons in intercepting the complainant, threatening him with a pistol, and snatching his mobile phone, the Court found the applicant’s case to be identical to that of co-accused Lavkush Kumar, who had already been granted bail

The Court further relied on the applicant’s custody since 14 May 2026, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude

Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against these bail considerations, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to stringent conditions

The Court directed that Manish Devnath be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court

The release was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the accused’s statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and consequences for absence or misuse of bail